9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, these investments are genuine and was fully explained by the assessee. In support of the loan of ₹ 3,50,000/- from CITI Bank, the assessee filed a copy of the sanctioned letter from the CITI Bank. With regard to loan amount of ₹ 75,000/- given by the assessee and received back on 14/2/2006(Rs. 25,000/-) and on 17/3/2006 (Rs. 50,000/-) a confirmation from Sh. S. Madhusudan was filed to this effect giving his complete address, PAN and the ward where he assessed to tax. Both these amounts were received in the HSBC account of the assessee through cheques. While explaining the source of these cash deposits the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that these cash deposits had been made out of cash in hand available as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 37,00,000/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ₹ 10,43,319/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Assessee filed return of income of ₹ 4,86,547/- on 30/3/2007. In the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the act, income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 53,93,066/- after making various additions i.e. ₹ 37 lakh u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act being unexplained investments in mutual funds, ₹ 11,43,319/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits appearing in the assessee s bank A/c and ₹ 56,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the assessee s bank account with ICICI Bank. The assessee is a retired senior citizen who retired from defence services in 1991. He derive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be verifiable [even though exact dates do not match] from the bank accounts copy available on record now. After giving benefit to these investments as reported in AIR information which could be said to be matching after excluding the sums reported in the AIR information reported as Others , the following investments still remained, the source of which could not be explained at all. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the source of these credits is not verifiable, and there has been no compliance from the assessee these credits amounting to ₹ 11,43,319/- are added to the total income of the assessee being unexplained as per Section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961. The CIT(A) has totally ignored these aspects, therefore, the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issuance of notices and non compliance on the part of the assessee but did not commented or made any observations on merits. The only observation made by the A.O is that as the assessee had not filed any submissions/replies during the course of the assessment proceedings in spite of various opportunities, the additional evidence filed by him at the appeal stagee should not be accepted. The assessee s explanation in this regard was that he was under judicial custody for the period 20/11/2008 to 2/1/2009. The same documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the FIR filed against him, a copy of his arrest letter, copy of court proceedings notice and a copy of bail letter dated 20/1/2009 was filed in support of this contention before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sits the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that these cash deposits had been made out of cash in hand available as on 1/4/2005 amounting to ₹ 2,50,000/-. This explanation of the assessee was rightly not accepted by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not maintain any book of account. No cash flow statement was available on record to show that the assessee actually had cash in hand of ₹ 2,50,000/- as on 1/4/2005. Therefore, amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- deposited in cash on different dates in ICICI Bank as mentioned above was rightly added to the assessee s income as unexplained cash credits in the assessee s bank accounts was restricted to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thus, the CIT(A) has correctly arrived at the finding after verifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
